Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

A Fit Companion – Genesis 2:18-25

Why do people get married? Is because we have a biological need to procreate? Of course, one needn’t be married to procreate. Is it because children need two parents to grow up into productive members of the community? If so, then why do people who are past child-bearing years or who have no intention of having children marry?

In Genesis 2, which provides us with a second creation story, there is a possible answer to the question – why do people get married? According Genesis 2, God after creates the man, puts him in the Garden, and gives him some instructions (don’t eat of the Tree of Knowledge), God notices that “it is not good that the man should be alone.” God discerns that the man needs a partner who is fit to him, and God is not that partner.

This is an important recognition on God’s part, because for the first time in the creation story, God discovers that something isn’t right. After every previous act of creation, God has pronounced it to be good. That includes the creation of the man. This time, God cannot say this. Being alone is not good for the man, and so God sets out to rectify the situation.

Wanting to make sure that everything is good, God goes back to the drawing board. The first attempt to solve this problem entailed creating non-human creatures. The man gives each creature that God presents to him with a name, but none of these creatures – living on land or in the air – is that fit companion for the man. The man remains alone and incomplete.

Since nothing that God has presented to the man will suffice, God must start fresh. This time God puts the man into a deep sleep, takes a rib, and fashions the rib into a new being – the woman. When God presents the woman to the man, the man shouts with joy:

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman (ishshah), for out of Man (ish) this one was taken.”

The passage continues in a way that is often repeated at weddings – “therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Nothing is said here about reproduction or about being fruitful and multiplying. In fact nothing is said about sex at all. It is simply that this woman is a fit companion who shares the same substance with the man. As a result, they can enter into a covenant relationship.

After the man affirms this gift of God, the author writes that the two leave behind their parents and are joined together as one flesh. We have often understood this statement about being of “one flesh” in sexual terms. That is, they are joined together sexually. In many cultures if two people do not consummate the marriage sexually, they are not considered married. Or, in other cultures – if you engage in sexual activity with a person you are deemed to be married to them. Obviously, in our culture the latter is not the case.

What does it mean to be “one flesh?” It could mean sharing sexual intimacy, and most marriages include sexuality. In fact, conversations about marriage raise the question of whether or not there is a proper sphere for sexual activity. We read in the Bible about adultery, which involves breaking a covenant relationship to engage in sexual activities outside one’s marriage relationship, and fornication, which can be seen as engaging in promiscuous sexual activity. Although change is occurring, traditionally any sexual activity outside marriage was considered inappropriate.

But does “one flesh” refer specifically to sexual intimacy? William Stacy Johnson believes that such an interpretation is too narrow an interpretation. He suggests that what this means is that the two become one family. This leaving one’s family of origin and joining with another is a shift in allegiance. Therefore, “the intensity of marital “cleaving” no doubt flows in part from the natural, erotic desire that exists between a man and a woman in love. Nevertheless, there is more to it than that, as the story of Ruth makes clear” [Johnson,A Time to Embrace: Same-Sex Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics, 2nd edition, p. 151.] In the story of Ruth, a Moabite woman refuses to “leave” (‘azab) behind her mother-in-law, and insists on “cleaving” (dabaq) to Naomi. This isn’t a sexual relationship, but it is a transition in familial relationships. The question then is this – must every family relationship involve a man and a woman, or could there be other forms, some of which do not involve sexual intimacy?

If Genesis 2 speaks of the importance or necessity of human companionship, does this mean that one is incomplete as a human being if one is not married? That is, can one be single and still be fully human? This is an important question that needs attention because often in our churches married life is deemed normative, and therefore to not be married is to live outside the expected norms. This reality can make church a difficult place to be if one is not married. What happens is that we become a community of “pairs and spares.” But, if we can take Genesis 2 as speaking to marriage, but not being tied to marriage, then can we not think of family in a variety of ways?

As we ask these questions, we must also face the question that is so pertinent in our day – does the fact that Genesis 2 speaks here in terms of gender differentiation here mean that the only fit partner is a person of the opposite gender? If this is true, that what do we say to persons whose attractions are for someone of the same gender and not the opposite gender? Is it possible for that fit partner and companion to be a person of the same gender, with whom a person desires to enter a covenant relationship with? There are those who answer no to the question. Others, with greater frequency, are saying yes.

The issue here is one of particularity. Does the fact that when the biblical authors speak of marriage, they speak in terms of male-female relationships mean that this is the only possible pattern? Are we limited by social norms present among those who gave us the biblical story? After all, in the Hebrew Bible there a number of persons living in polygamous marriages. That the culture has apparently changed by the first century doesn’t mean that official rules against polygamy were issued.

This is a question that remains under discussion. My own feeling is that what is said here of a male-female partnership, could be said of committed covenanted same-gender relationships. The particularity of the language in the Bible reflects cultural norms. Those norms are changing, so should we change with them?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mark 11:1-11 (John 12:12-16) New Revised Standard Version11 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.’” 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,“Hosan…

John 10:11-18 New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV)11 “I am the good shepherd. The good
shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The
hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf
coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and
scatters them.13 The hired hand runs away because a
hired hand does not care for the sheep. 14 I am the
good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just
as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the
sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not belong to
this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there
will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason
the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up
again. 18 No one takes[a] it from me, but I lay
it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take
it up again. I have received this command from my Father.”
********
One of
the…

John 15:9-17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. 12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you servants[a] any longer, because the servant[b] does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. 16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. 17 I am giving you these commands so that you may love one …

I am a Disciples of Christ pastor, theologian, community activist, historian, teacher. I'm a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary with a M.Div. and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology. I'm the author of a number of books including
Out of the Office: A Theology of Ministry (Energion, 2017), Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016), and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015).